{"title":"Clarence Thomas, Fisher v. University of Texas, and the Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education","authors":"S. Gerber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2798038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article originated as a paper for an affirmative action symposium at the University of Chicago Law School sponsored by the Midwest Black Law Students Association. The article places Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas (“Fisher I”) in the larger context of his voluminous writings on race in general and affirmative action in particular. The article also discusses the commentary on Justice Thomas’s Fisher I opinion because the reaction to what he writes, especially on matters of race, is almost as important as the opinions themselves. The article concludes with some brief comments on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a 2014 case about the constitutionality of a 2006 amendment to the Michigan state constitution banning racial preferences in Michigan, and on Fisher v. University of Texas (“Fisher II”), which the Court will be deciding by the end of June 2016. Justice Scalia’s recent death figures prominently in the concluding section.","PeriodicalId":83423,"journal":{"name":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","volume":"7 1","pages":"1169-1192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2798038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
This article originated as a paper for an affirmative action symposium at the University of Chicago Law School sponsored by the Midwest Black Law Students Association. The article places Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas (“Fisher I”) in the larger context of his voluminous writings on race in general and affirmative action in particular. The article also discusses the commentary on Justice Thomas’s Fisher I opinion because the reaction to what he writes, especially on matters of race, is almost as important as the opinions themselves. The article concludes with some brief comments on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a 2014 case about the constitutionality of a 2006 amendment to the Michigan state constitution banning racial preferences in Michigan, and on Fisher v. University of Texas (“Fisher II”), which the Court will be deciding by the end of June 2016. Justice Scalia’s recent death figures prominently in the concluding section.
这篇文章起源于中西部黑人法律学生协会在芝加哥大学法学院举办的平权行动研讨会上的一篇论文。这篇文章将托马斯大法官在费舍尔诉德克萨斯大学案(Fisher v. University of Texas)中的一致意见(“费舍尔一号”)放在他关于种族问题,特别是平权行动的大量著作的大背景中。这篇文章还讨论了对托马斯·费雪一号大法官的意见的评论,因为人们对他所写内容的反应,尤其是在种族问题上的反应,几乎和这些意见本身一样重要。文章最后简要评论了2014年的舒特诉平权行动联盟案(Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action)和费舍尔诉德克萨斯大学案(Fisher v. University of Texas),后者涉及2006年密歇根州宪法修正案禁止在密歇根州实行种族优惠的合宪性,法院将在2016年6月底做出裁决。斯卡利亚法官最近的死亡在结束语中占据突出地位。